Abstract— The recently published phylogeny of Braconidae by Quicke and van Achterberg is reassessed. Character‐state definitions and character polarities are evaluated, and more rigorous methods are suggested. Our results indicate that there are many more parsimonious solutions to their data set, the consensus of which differs substantially from their results. Based on our reassessment, little can be said about the relationships among braconid subfamilies. Consensus trees show the cyclostomes as a largely unresolved basal grade. The two other major lineages which have been proposed, the helconoids and microgastroids, are somewhat better resolved, but not consistently so. Relationships among the helconoids vary considerably depending on the parameters used for parsimony analysis.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||37|
|State||Published - Sep 1992|
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics